Cycling, traffic safety, traffic justice, and legal topics; energy, transit and transportion economics
*** a third win, see Another Appellate win for bicyclists in Pima County. Here is the order. ***
Educated cyclists know that they not only can (legally), but should (for safety) occupy an entire lane when conditions dictate. One of these conditions is when the lane is too narrow to safely share side-by-side (skip down to definition #narrow).
Arizona law is quite strong and plain in this regard. Continue reading “Take the lane”
It seems that the Pima County Sheriff’s department, in particular the Green Valley District, is out to get cyclists riding two abreast, see the discussion over at tusconbikelawyer.com.
In the commentary there, someone pointed out a link to an interesting Mionske blog/article regarding the quandary over obeying baseless orders of law enforcement.
But, back to Arizona — to recap the impeding stuff, it is important to know that Bicycles are not motor vehicles…, to understand Arizona’s general-purpose impeding statute does not apply to cyclists.
And for some general references see Two abreastness.
Another excellent, as usual, Legally Speaking with Bob Mionske, Two-by-two, covers the two abreast issue, covering specifically a situation in Wisconsin. Here’s the low-down on Arizona law: Continue reading “Two abreastness”